Request an external model proposal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context by explicitly stating the tool never executes and clarifies that it calls an external, pre-configured OpenAI-compatible model. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely compact: one sentence plus a short clarifying fragment. It front-loads the core action and keeps every word informative with no repetition of schema or annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The core purpose and non-execution behavior are clear, and annotations plus the schema's defaults/enums cover safety and allowed values. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned proposal contains or how the three parameters shape it, leaving some ambiguity for a 3-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters (task, page_summary, allowed_tools). The agent is left to infer what inputs to provide from parameter names alone; the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the explicit verb 'Ask' and names the resource ('explicitly configured OpenAI-compatible model') and the deliverable ('one schema-validated Fast GUI proposal'). The second clause 'Never executes it' sharply distinguishes this from sibling execution tools like act.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear this tool is for obtaining a proposal only and explicitly states it never executes, giving an agent a clear context for choosing it over execution-oriented siblings. It does not name alternative tools or list conditions when not to use it, but the non-execution statement provides strong routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.